A look at potential outcomes for the Proposition 8 case and then for the case about DOMA:

___

Q. What if the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8?

A. This would leave gay Californians without the right to marry in the state and would tell the roughly 40 states that do not allow same-sex marriages that there is no constitutional problem in limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Such an outcome probably would trigger a political campaign in California to repeal Proposition 8 through a ballot measure and could give impetus to similar voter or legislative efforts in other states.

___

Q. What if the court strikes down Proposition 8?

A. A ruling in favor of the two same-sex couples who sued to invalidate the voter-approved gay marriage ban could produce one of three possibilities. The broadest would apply across the country, in effect invalidating constitutional provisions or statutes against gay marriage everywhere.

Or a majority of the justices could agree on a middle option that applies only to California as well as Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Those states already treat gay and straight couples the same in almost every respect through civil unions or domestic partnerships. The only difference is that gay couples are not allowed to marry. Gov. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., signed his state's civil unions law Thursday.

This "nine-state solution" would say that the Constitution forbids states to withhold marriage from same-sex couples while giving them all the basic rights of married people. But this ruling would not implicate marriage bans in other states and would leave open the question of whether states could deprive gay couples of any rights at all.

The narrowest of these potential outcomes would apply to California only. The justices essentially would adopt the rationale of the federal appeals court that found that California could not take away the right to marry that had been granted by the state Supreme Court in 2008 before Proposition 8 passed later that year.

In addition, if the Supreme Court were to rule that gays and lesbians are deserving of special protection from discriminatory laws, it is unlikely that any state ban on same-sex marriage could survive long, even if the justices don't issue an especially broad ruling in this case.

___

Q. Are there other potential outcomes?

A. Yes, the court has a technical way out of the case without deciding anything about same-sex marriage. The Proposition 8 challengers argue that the private parties defending the provision — members of the group that helped put the ban on the ballot — did not have the right to appeal the trial judge's initial decision striking it down or that of the federal appeals court.

The justices sometimes attach great importance to this concept, known as standing. If they find Proposition 8's proponents lack standing, the justices also would find the Supreme Court has no basis on which to decide the case.

The most likely outcome of such a ruling also would throw out the appeals court decision that struck down the ban but would leave in place the trial court ruling in favor same-sex marriage. At the very least, the two same-sex couples almost certainly would be granted a marriage license, and Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., who opposes Proposition 8, probably would give county clerks the go-ahead to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

___

Q. Are the possibilities for the DOMA case as complicated?

A. No, although there are some technical issues that could get in the way of a significant ruling.

___

Q. What happens if the court upholds Section 3 of DOMA, defining marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman?

A. Upholding DOMA would not affect state laws regarding marriage but would keep in place federal statutes and rules that prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving a range of benefits that are otherwise available to married people. These benefits include breaks on estate taxes, health insurance for spouses of federal workers and Social Security survivor benefits.

___

Q. What if the court strikes down the DOMA provision?

A. A ruling against DOMA would allow legally married gay couples, or in some cases, a surviving spouse in a same-sex marriage, to receive benefits and tax breaks resulting from more than 1,000 federal statutes in which marital status is relevant. For 83-year-old Edith Windsor, a New York widow whose case is before the court, such a ruling would give her a refund of $363,000 in estate taxes that were paid after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.

___

Q. What procedural problems could prevent the court from reaching a decision about DOMA?

A. As in the Proposition 8 case, there are questions about whether the House Republican leadership has the right to bring a court case to defend the law because the Obama administration decided not to.

House Republicans argue that the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case because it changed its position and now argues that the provision is unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get her refund because she won in the lower courts, but there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court and it would remain on the books.

CA voters had already passed a law so homosexuals can have a civil union.

I thought we took care of their problem but then they sued us when we simply defined marriage.

We did not ban anything. We simply defined marriage as a word.

fj1200

03-23-2013, 03:10 PM

We did not ban anything. We simply defined marriage as a word.

Thereby discriminating Federally via DOMA... or at least is one of the questions before the court.

Robert A Whit

03-23-2013, 03:27 PM

Thereby discriminating Federally via DOMA... or at least is one of the questions before the court.

Well, if we banned anything, it was polygamy and adult incest marriages and homosexuals then. But we did not single out any group. The wording of the constitution is clear.

Marriage is one man to one woman. End of story.

We did not however pass a law to allow polygamists a civil union nor adults into incest civil unions.

We gave homosexuals a very good deal. Then they pout.

fj1200

03-23-2013, 03:30 PM

We gave homosexuals a very good deal. Then they pout.

I guess they didn't see it that way. Doesn't address my post though.

Robert A Whit

03-23-2013, 04:01 PM

I guess they didn't see it that way. Doesn't address my post though.

Your point is moot since I speak of the state Constitution where you speak of the Obama refusal to defend a federal law.

fj1200

03-23-2013, 10:10 PM

Your point is moot since I speak of the state Constitution where you speak of the Obama refusal to defend a federal law.

You may have noticed that DOMA was referenced in the OP.

Robert A Whit

03-23-2013, 10:38 PM

You may have noticed that DOMA was referenced in the OP.

I did. I also spoke to CA law as your reference to our proposition 8. I voted for 8 so I felt obliged to defend why we voted for it. I did not vote for DOMA.

fj1200

03-23-2013, 10:41 PM

I did. I also spoke to CA law as your reference to our proposition 8. I voted for 8 so I felt obliged to defend why we voted for it. I did not vote for DOMA.

Then they apparently had a different opinion about your "very good deal."

Robert A Whit

03-24-2013, 12:12 AM

Then they apparently had a different opinion about your "very good deal."

Go figure since they got what marriage gives.

DragonStryk72

03-24-2013, 05:05 PM

Go figure since they got what marriage gives.

separate but equal, huh?

If its so good, why not toss marriage and just do civil unions?

If its the same, then why a different term?

Robert A Whit

03-24-2013, 05:10 PM

separate but equal, huh?

If its so good, why not toss marriage and just do civil unions?

If its the same, then why a different term?

Well per some of you, we banned polygamy and adult incest marriages too. Something is good about what we the public voted for.

fj1200

03-24-2013, 10:07 PM

Go figure since they got what marriage gives.

Not exactly, but you think so I guess.

Robert A Whit

03-24-2013, 11:58 PM

Not exactly, but you think so I guess.

What do you claim they missed?

fj1200

03-25-2013, 12:04 AM

What do you claim they missed?

:cough: Federal :cough:

avatar4321

03-25-2013, 01:58 AM

And if gay marriage is recognized, the biggest outcome is that evil men and women will use the law to persecute Christians and those of any other faith that holds the family unit as sacred.

Which, of course, is why the Adversary is working so hard to get it past. Not to mention, he is a master imitator. He imitates the sacred. Communism is a cheap immitation of the Lord's pattern for society to take care of one another. Universities are a cheap imitation of the Temple (Though to be fair, universities actually have a legitimate purpose as well. Doesn't change the fact that they are an imitation of the way the Lord educates). Satan imitates Christ and tries to trick others into thinking he is the Savior. "Gay Marriage" is a cheap imitation of the family unit God ordained.

What God has ordained can create life and joy. What Satan imitates can never do anything but destroy and make miserable.

The Adversary wants to make everyone as miserable as he is. That's his goal. That's one of the reasons he sets up immitations of what the Lord does. The Lord's way brings joy, and people are drawn to it because they seek joy. The evil one creates imitations so he can decieve people who are looking for the geniune article. It's a pattern that happens again and again throughout history. I think that's why he favors bigger government. He can imitate God's role as a lawmaker and make people miserable with his purposely ill thought out rules and regulations.

I don't know why anyone wants to purposely empower the government to regulate homosexual relationships. Im not sure why we allow the government to regulate any relationships. It's not like people can't make covenants and honor those covenants without government enforcement.

avatar4321

03-25-2013, 02:00 AM

BTW Im sure what I said was controversial. I don't care. It's true.

fj1200

03-25-2013, 08:20 AM

BTW Im sure what I said was controversial. I don't care. It's true.

No, it's what you believe to be true. I do agree, however, that government shouldn't be in the business of regulating relationships.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

03-25-2013, 08:26 AM

No, it's what you believe to be true. I do agree, however, that government shouldn't be in the business of regulating relationships.

No, it is true. You see truth does not depend on or need your agreement .
A shocking revelation for sure but I am sure you've gotten over that long ago.-Tyr

fj1200

03-25-2013, 08:29 AM

No, it is true. You see truth does not depend on or need your agreement .
A shocking revelation for sure but I am sure you've gotten over that long ago.-Tyr

Apparently it's what you believe to be true as well.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

03-25-2013, 08:35 AM

Apparently it's what you believe to be true as well.

Actually it is what I know to be true....

fj1200

03-25-2013, 08:41 AM

Actually it is what I know to be true....

Well as soon as you can prove it you can make policy based on it.

cadet

03-25-2013, 12:00 PM

BTW Im sure what I said was controversial. I don't care. It's true.

Stand up for what you believe!
We just had a whole sermon sunday about how the world is saying how evil is now seen as OK.
And there's a lot of things that have become gray areas in good and evil. And we need to realize that no matter how much you sugarcoat things, it's still bad.

DragonStryk72

03-25-2013, 12:16 PM

I don't know why anyone wants to purposely empower the government to regulate homosexual relationships. Im not sure why we allow the government to regulate any relationships. It's not like people can't make covenants and honor those covenants without government enforcement.

Y'know, this is one of the main areas I keep talking about? The government has this tendency to not use the simplest point of argument. Someone up there really needs to just step out and say, "Look, we aren't talking about the covenant of marriage as set by whatever religious institution, we're talking about contracts and census here. This is all paperwork, not a morality play."

Wouldn't that solve up a ton of arguments?

Robert A Whit

03-25-2013, 12:24 PM

Y'know, this is one of the main areas I keep talking about? The government has this tendency to not use the simplest point of argument. Someone up there really needs to just step out and say, "Look, we aren't talking about the covenant of marriage as set by whatever religious institution, we're talking about contracts and census here. This is all paperwork, not a morality play."

Wouldn't that solve up a ton of arguments?

The history of marriage shows it does not have roots in religion.

It has roots in protecting the children and setting in law the pact between the man and woman.

I believe that homosexuals seek this over tax benefits and other financial issues.

fj1200

03-25-2013, 01:48 PM

The history of marriage shows it does not have roots in religion.

It has roots in protecting the children and setting in law the pact between the man and woman.

I believe that homosexuals seek this over tax benefits and other financial issues.

Your support of gay marriage is noted. ;)

avatar4321

03-25-2013, 01:51 PM

No, it's what you believe to be true. I do agree, however, that government shouldn't be in the business of regulating relationships.

It's either true or not true. My belief in it or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to it's veracity. It would still be true even if I completely denied it.

avatar4321

03-25-2013, 01:53 PM

Well as soon as you can prove it you can make policy based on it.

I was unaware that we had to prove anything to make policy. Or that we needed your permission to support policies we think are good.

In fact, Im pretty sure we don't. If proof was a requirement to make policy, we'd have alot less bullcrap environmental regulation, particularly in the global warming area.

fj1200

03-25-2013, 02:06 PM

I was unaware that we had to prove anything to make policy. Or that we needed your permission to support policies we think are good.

In fact, Im pretty sure we don't. If proof was a requirement to make policy, we'd have alot less bullcrap environmental regulation, particularly in the global warming area.

Very true however if you wish to convince a majority to make/vote for/enact/etc. policy based on your belief then proof may be helpful.

Robert A Whit

03-25-2013, 02:19 PM

Your support of gay marriage is noted. ;)

Well that flies in the face of my vote for Proposition 8. I simply defined marriage.

I did support civil unions but now I am sorry I did.

fj1200

03-25-2013, 02:23 PM

Well that flies in the face of my vote for Proposition 8. I simply defined marriage.

I did support civil unions but now I am sorry I did.

The point was that if it's "for the kids..." well, then, gays have kids.

DragonStryk72

03-25-2013, 03:01 PM

The history of marriage shows it does not have roots in religion.

It has roots in protecting the children and setting in law the pact between the man and woman.

I believe that homosexuals seek this over tax benefits and other financial issues.

Well, actually, somewhat that, but as well, it was used as a commodity. How many peace treaties, trade pacts, and such were contingent upon a marriage between the two groups? As well, you have the aspect of marriage that places the parties as off-limits to others. We can never forget that, while we are social creatures, we also are very bound into what is ours, be it our spouse, our faith, or our cars.

It's really only recently that marriage even became about love, when you get right down to it. Rich or poor, you were usually marrying for stability, not for romanticism. Also, don't forget the pact between man and women. Plural marriage was also a huge thing in our history, just look to the Old Testament.

I agree that the gay community is more concerned over family and sealing the pact between one another.

Robert A Whit

03-25-2013, 03:05 PM

Well, actually, somewhat that, but as well, it was used as a commodity. How many peace treaties, trade pacts, and such were contingent upon a marriage between the two groups? As well, you have the aspect of marriage that places the parties as off-limits to others. We can never forget that, while we are social creatures, we also are very bound into what is ours, be it our spouse, our faith, or our cars.

It's really only recently that marriage even became about love, when you get right down to it. Rich or poor, you were usually marrying for stability, not for romanticism. Also, don't forget the pact between man and women. Plural marriage was also a huge thing in our history, just look to the Old Testament.

I agree that the gay community is more concerned over family and sealing the pact between one another.

Except that final sentence, you and I are on the same track.

My view is that when they say it is not about money, you can count on it being about money so I think homosexuals do this over money.

gabosaurus

03-25-2013, 03:55 PM

If we are going to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, then we should further define what "a marriage" is.
Meaning you can only get legally married once. After that, you can have a civil union, but not a legal marriage.
I think people's lives get more screwed up with multiple marriages than they ever would with gay marriages.
If you only had one chance to get it right, perhaps you would take more time to consider things.
My husband and I knew each other for seven years before we got married.

DragonStryk72

03-25-2013, 03:57 PM

Except that final sentence, you and I are on the same track.

My view is that when they say it is not about money, you can count on it being about money so I think homosexuals do this over money.

It's actually perceived unfairness, but money is of course going to be involved in any attempt to build a family. After all, how do you pay to support children, a wife/husband, and uphold a house without it?

And thanks to the economy being in the tank, money is now much more of an issue than it was even 10 years ago.

I think that saying it's straight money is... inaccurate. I mean, what we're really talking about here is income vs. cost of living. In areas where the cost of living is pretty low as compared to the income (Texas, for example), you see far less unrest on this, and many other subjects. That doesn't mean that it's all about money, but while money cant buy happiness, it can remove a number of obstacles.

Robert A Whit

03-25-2013, 04:09 PM

It's actually perceived unfairness, but money is of course going to be involved in any attempt to build a family. After all, how do you pay to support children, a wife/husband, and uphold a house without it?

And thanks to the economy being in the tank, money is now much more of an issue than it was even 10 years ago.

I think that saying it's straight money is... inaccurate. I mean, what we're really talking about here is income vs. cost of living. In areas where the cost of living is pretty low as compared to the income (Texas, for example), you see far less unrest on this, and many other subjects. That doesn't mean that it's all about money, but while money cant buy happiness, it can remove a number of obstacles.

Giving and receiving blow jobs does not cost money. Lesbians have no need to marry women.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

03-25-2013, 05:01 PM

Well as soon as you can prove it you can make policy based on it.

No, its not my job to make policy and proving something is correct or even should be done which has not been a requirement for government policy making since well over a century ago. Now making up lying bullshit reasons and justifications serves much more easily to be able to do dumb shit. That's why it's the norm the azzhats do not want to have to really prove the necessity or correctness of implementing a policy. Lying is so damn much easier and with a dumbed down public its now easy as hell just as the lib/leftists/dems have spent many decades engineering.-Tyr

fj1200

03-25-2013, 05:19 PM

No, its not my job...

That was the rhetorical you.

red states rule

03-26-2013, 03:23 AM

Given the "reporting" in the liberal media the debate is over and there is only ONE solution

MSNBC's Contessa Brewer Says Asking for Balance on Gays Is Like Asking for 'Fair Coverage of Racists'

The Left Needs the Supreme Court to Rule in Favor of Gay Marriage Because the People Won't

RUSH: Folks, here's the deal. Liberal policies are being imposed on the entire nation. They are being imposed, and they are to be. Those that haven't been, will be. That's the deal. Liberalism is being forced on the entire nation. If they cannot achieve it by the vote, then they will achieve it by judicial fiat. There is no saying "no" to the liberal agenda. There is no "no." You can say "no," but it's not gonna count. If you don't want it, and if a majority of people don't want it, doesn't matter; it's going to be forced on you.

The reason this matters, gay marriage, the reason homosexual marriage is before the Supreme Court is because the people of California voted "no," Proposition 8, they voted "no." The courts, obviously run by the left, have said otherwise. The other issue before the court is the Defense of Marriage Act. That was passed by Congress and that was signed into law by President Clinton. Whether by direct vote or through their representatives, in both instances the people said "no" to homosexual marriage.

Now, the liberals are trying to force five or six justices to say "yes," and that's that. And that's why it's being called a civil right. You put civil right in front of any piece of legislation, and the odds are it'll pass because nobody's got the guts to vote "no" to a new civil right. Civil rights in this country means one thing: the end of discrimination based on race, usually, but now to include sexual orientation. So you say that there is a civil right being denied when two people of the same sex can't get married, then what does that make the opponents? It makes them bigots. People that oppose civil rights are called bigots. And what do you do with bigots? You ignore them and you put them down. You impugn them, and you use them to advance your cause.

I dare say that if somebody wanted to legalize... take something that you find reprehensible. I don't know what it would be, but everybody opposes it. Somebody could propose it and call it a civil right, and it might have a chance of becoming a law simply because of the power of those two words, "civil rights." So same-sex marriage and wiping out the Defense of Marriage Act is now a civil right. People that oppose it are bigots and nobody wants to be a bigot. But the thing you can't say is that if left to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage loses every time it's on the ballot. I think so far it's 30 times. State ballots, initiatives and other things, and the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level. It's never passed. You wouldn't know that, would you, by listening to the pop culture media?

You would think that this issue has overtaken everything, it's the most important issue to everybody and anybody, and that it has massive public support. And yet every time it's been voted on by the people it has gone down to defeat. That's why the courts have to get involved, because the people, according to the left, won't do the right thing. And liberal policies are to be imposed on the nation. It's the only way the country can become liberal is to have them imposed. People would never vote for the stuff. People never, ever vote for liberalism when that's what they know is ahead of them. When they know that a candidate is liberal -- I'm talking about nationally -- when they know that a policy is liberal, when they know that a candidate is liberal, doesn't have a prayer, nationally.

That's why it has to be imposed. You don't say "no" to them. There is no such thing as losing. There's no such thing as defeat. The arena of ideas doesn't matter. That's why they don't care to debate anything. It doesn't matter. Whether you oppose something or not, it doesn't matter. It's gonna happen. We're gonna impose our will and way of life on you, whether you like it or not. We're not gonna waste time trying to change your heart. We're not gonna waste time debating you and trying to change your mind. We're gonna impose it on you. And that's why we go to the courts, which is what's happening.

But the thing you can't say is that if left to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage loses every time it's on the ballot. I think so far it's 30 times. State ballots, initiatives and other things, and the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level. It's never passed.

That's no longer true.

Voters approve same-sex marriage for the first time - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/pol-same-sex-marriage)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

03-26-2013, 10:11 AM

That was the rhetorical you.

My answer was my being specific about me as a voter. That you did not get it is no surprise to me. Was obvious that you did not think I am an elected official and involved in making government policy and was not speaking directly to my job. Therefore your snide little attempt at insulting me was as pathetic as is usual..--:laugh:-Tyr

fj1200

03-26-2013, 10:21 AM

My answer was my being specific about me as a voter. That you did not get it is no surprise to me. Was obvious that you did not think I am an elected official and involved in making government policy and was not speaking directly to my job. Therefore your snide little attempt at insulting me was as pathetic as is usual..--:laugh:-Tyr

Where was my attempt at insult? Nevertheless I am thankful every day that your power of effecting policy does not rise above the ballot box.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

03-26-2013, 10:28 AM

Where was my attempt at insult? Nevertheless I am thankful every day that your power of effecting policy does not rise above the ballot box.

Takes high priority with me what you are thankful for.:laugh:
When you replied as if I failed to understand that the -you- in your post was rhetorical was YOU trying to cleverly insult me. NOW YOU DID SO AGAIN BY GIVING THAT PRETENDING INNOCENCE BY ASKING ..
Here is a loud hint, Hoss, you aren't that clever ever..:laugh2:--Tyr

fj1200

03-26-2013, 10:35 AM

NOW YOU DID SO AGAIN BY GIVING THAT PRETENDING INNOCENCE BY ASKING ..

:dunno: You find insult in so many places so I thought I would ask for clarity.

Robert A Whit

03-26-2013, 12:17 PM

The media promotes homosexuals marrying. I see it all the time on my ABC/CBS/NBC channels. Even PBS promotes it.

There can be no doubt that when tHEY do a poll, it is rigged.

How do I know?

CA by a wide margin opposed marriage of homosexuals. Around 30 plus states oppose it. So where are those people who now claim they want it?

It is one thing for polls to swing a point to 5 points but the media preaches to us it has moved some huge number in favor.

I tell you guys, it won't stop with homosexuals. When they get their way, there can't be any rules of any type on marriages of any sort. The FEDS have an anti polygamy law. That would have to go.

red states rule

03-26-2013, 04:27 PM

The media promotes homosexuals marrying. I see it all the time on my ABC/CBS/NBC channels. Even PBS promotes it.

There can be no doubt that when tHEY do a poll, it is rigged.

How do I know?

CA by a wide margin opposed marriage of homosexuals. Around 30 plus states oppose it. So where are those people who now claim they want it?

It is one thing for polls to swing a point to 5 points but the media preaches to us it has moved some huge number in favor.

I tell you guys, it won't stop with homosexuals. When they get their way, there can't be any rules of any type on marriages of any sort. The FEDS have an anti polygamy law. That would have to go.

Here is the latest from the "objective" liberal media

Amid Slanted Gay Marriage Coverage, NBC Wonders: 'Will the Justices Make it Legal in Every State?'

Voters approve same-sex marriage for the first time - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/pol-same-sex-marriage)

OK - would you believe nearly every time?

It does not change the fact libs need Judges to do something the voters will not do

fj1200

03-26-2013, 04:55 PM

OK - would you believe nearly every time?

It does not change the fact libs need Judges to do something the voters will not do

Actually the recent track record is looking pretty bad for you proving that the voters will do it.

The result: Maryland and Maine will now allow couples like Chyrino Patane and James Trinidad to tie the knot.
...
A similar ballot measure in Washington state is pending. And in Minnesota, voters rejected a measure that would have banned same-sex marriage.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/pol-same-sex-marriage

You might be looking at a 4 vote losing streak. Nevertheless when you hang your hat on votes and then the votes start to go against you you've lost your argument.

gabosaurus

03-26-2013, 04:58 PM

I tell you guys, it won't stop with homosexuals. When they get their way, there can't be any rules of any type on marriages of any sort. The FEDS have an anti polygamy law. That would have to go.

There is only one sect of people and one religion that approves of polygamy.

Marriage should be two people. Not children. Not animals. Not refrigerators. Two people, regardless of gender.
Take away your religious values, which a large number of Americans do not share, and what is your reason to oppose it?

red states rule

03-26-2013, 05:22 PM

Actually the recent track record is looking pretty bad for you proving that the voters will do it.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/pol-same-sex-marriage

You might be looking at a 4 vote losing streak. Nevertheless when you hang your hat on votes and then the votes start to go against you you've lost your argument.

If that is the case, then libs should be happy to let the voters decide. But libs do not trust the voters. I know they rant to "count every vote" but that applies only when libs agree with the vote

The argument stands FU. Libs would rather have a judge decide things rather then voters

avatar4321

03-26-2013, 05:24 PM

There is only one sect of people and one religion that approves of polygamy.

Marriage should be two people. Not children. Not animals. Not refrigerators. Two people, regardless of gender.
Take away your religious values, which a large number of Americans do not share, and what is your reason to oppose it?

1) Only one? Hardly.
2) What you think marriage should be, and what it actually is, is two totally different things.

red states rule

03-26-2013, 05:27 PM

There is only one sect of people and one religion that approves of polygamy.

Marriage should be two people. Not children. Not animals. Not refrigerators. Two people, regardless of gender.
Take away your religious values, which a large number of Americans do not share, and what is your reason to oppose it?

So you are willing to tell the voters in the 25 or so states that have voted marriage is between one man and one women to go to Hell? Even the voters in CA ()and majority of blacks) voted for that

jimnyc

03-26-2013, 05:29 PM

There is only one sect of people and one religion that approves of polygamy.

Marriage should be two people. Not children. Not animals. Not refrigerators. Two people, regardless of gender.
Take away your religious values, which a large number of Americans do not share, and what is your reason to oppose it?

Once again, reasons you disagree with don't mean people have reasons to oppose. These reasons have been placed out there a million times, on this board alone, you just choose to think they are not valid. Just as some see the reasoning to be in favor, is not valid. This is why the government should bail on it altogether. I wish the Roman Catholic Church would be in charge of issuing their own marriage certificates. Let the others do whatever they please so long as the government isn't sponsoring it. I don't want to be told my marriage is "equal" to that of something I abhor. Everyone can then be married and handle their own affairs, and churches and other places are free to enjoy their religion.

fj1200

03-26-2013, 05:30 PM

If that is the case, then libs should be happy to let the voters decide. But libs do not trust the voters. I know they rant to "count every vote" but that applies only when libs agree with the vote

The argument stands FU. Libs would rather have a judge decide things rather then voters

So you're accepting of the outcome then? Excellent. Unfortunately it becomes a court issue when some are favored by government over others.

red states rule

03-26-2013, 05:33 PM

So you're accepting of the outcome then? Excellent. Unfortunately it becomes a court issue when some are favored by government over others.

Yes I aceept hat the voters say. However libs like you believe that most voters are too stupid to make the correct decision. Therefore a liberal Judge needs to step in and make the decision on everyone's behalf. That is why it is now a court issue. Libs do not trust or respect the decision the voters made

Robert A Whit

03-26-2013, 05:39 PM

So you're accepting of the outcome then? Excellent. Unfortunately it becomes a court issue when some are favored by government over others.

You must mean like polygamists, bigamists and adult incest marriages then? You really ready for all of those to be legal?

jimnyc

03-26-2013, 05:42 PM

Yes I aceept hat the voters say.

Liberals generally accept what the voters say too, unless they lose, in which case they seek out activist courts/judges. A shame that a handful of individuals can override what the majority of states and voters want, but that's the way we designed the system, unfortunately.

Robert A Whit

03-26-2013, 05:55 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626880#post626880)
I tell you guys, it won't stop with homosexuals. When they get their way, there can't be any rules of any type on marriages of any sort. The FEDS have an anti polygamy law. That would have to go.

There is only one sect of people and one religion that approves of polygamy.

Marriage should be two people. Not children. Not animals. Not refrigerators. Two people, regardless of gender.
Take away your religious values, which a large number of Americans do not share, and what is your reason to oppose it?

If you mean the subset of unofficial Mormons, so what? I can't be certain but I believe those don't marry children. Besides, if there is love, how can you mind?

You want limits, just not for homosexuals You made my argument for me. For only homexuals to join heterosexuals makes little sense if any. Religion is not some excuse for or against marriage given it is regulated by states.

fj1200

03-26-2013, 05:58 PM

Yes I aceept hat the voters say.

Excellent.

However libs like you believe that most voters are too stupid to make the correct decision.

Oh geez, not this again. :facepalm99: How about just one liberal position that I have.

Therefore a liberal Judge needs to step in and make the decision on everyone's behalf. That is why it is now a court issue. Libs do not trust or respect the decision the voters made

And no, it's a SCOTUS issue because it involves a Constitutional question. You were supportive of the ACA challenges were you not? I know I was even though passage was the result of the voting process.

jimnyc

03-26-2013, 06:07 PM

Oh geez, not this again. :facepalm99: How about just one liberal position that I have.

Didn't you support the nutters that purposely fuck with the cops so that they can catch the reactions. Nevermind my slanted write up, but I thought you supported those folks. I would argue that THAT support would be a liberal style stance.

You dirty liberal heathen!!! :poke::lol:

red states rule

03-26-2013, 06:16 PM

Excellent.

Oh geez, not this again. :facepalm99: How about just one liberal position that I have.

And no, it's a SCOTUS issue because it involves a Constitutional question. You were supportive of the ACA challenges were you not? I know I was even though passage was the result of the voting process.
You should save time, come out, and admit you are a liberal. The ONLY reason this is a court issue ius because sore loser libs got pissed off they lost an election.

fj1200

03-26-2013, 09:38 PM

Didn't you support the nutters that purposely fuck with the cops so that they can catch the reactions. Nevermind my slanted write up, but I thought you supported those folks. I would argue that THAT support would be a liberal style stance.

You dirty liberal heathen!!! :poke::lol:

Well THAT doesn't sound like me. :slap:

fj1200

03-26-2013, 09:40 PM

You should save time, come out, and admit you are a liberal. The ONLY reason this is a court issue ius because sore loser libs got pissed off they lost an election.

:laugh: Don't you mean save you the embarrassment of failure? Actually Equal Protection and big government benefits is why this is a SCOTUS issue IMO.

jimnyc

03-26-2013, 09:40 PM

Well THAT doesn't sound like me. :slap:

Liberal Heathen!!

fj1200

03-26-2013, 09:42 PM

Liberal Heathen!!

Watch it or I'll conjure up Windsong on you. :eek:

jimnyc

03-26-2013, 09:43 PM

Watch it or I'll conjure up Windsong on you. :eek:

I think Robert would like her.

fj1200

03-26-2013, 09:44 PM

I think Robert would like her.

:laugh:

Robert A Whit

03-27-2013, 01:28 AM

I think Robert would like her.

Could be. Let me give you a hint.

I like people that are not bastards. I like honest people. I like people who can take it just as good as they dish it out. I like people who can discuss a topic like tramp stamps and not act like a child but also realize a tramp stamp is a narrow type of .... well, art.

Does that sound like that person?

red states rule

03-27-2013, 03:50 AM

:laugh: Don't you mean save you the embarrassment of failure? Actually Equal Protection and big government benefits is why this is a SCOTUS issue IMO.

No FUTroll, the reason it is in the courts is due to sore loser libs and gays that lost the vote in CA the bluest of blue states. Like you they have contempt for those who openly oppose their will and they seek to force their agenda on them

Just like Rush said libs want the court to do what the voters will not

red states rule

03-27-2013, 05:00 AM

This sums up the difference between conservatives/liberals and why the SC is having to hear this case

No FUTroll, the reason it is in the courts is due to sore loser libs and gays that lost the vote in CA the bluest of blue states. Like you they have contempt for those who openly oppose their will and they seek to force their agenda on them

Just like Rush said libs want the court to do what the voters will not

Nope, it's a Constitutional question. Besides, last I checked Prop 8 and DOMA were separate laws.

This sums up the difference between conservatives/liberals and why the SC is having to hear this case

:laugh: Don't you mean save you the embarrassment of failure? Actually Equal Protection and big government benefits is why this is a SCOTUS issue IMO.

No FUTroll, the reason it is in the courts is due to sore loser libs and gays that lost the vote in CA the bluest of blue states. Like you they have contempt for those who openly oppose their will and they seek to force their agenda on them

Just like Rush said libs want the court to do what the voters will not

Along with that, we in CA had already voted for a law providing them civil unions though none were offered to several other classes of the public. Many figured that was a mistake but some of us fell for homosexuals nonsense that it would satisfy them. Notice this was mentioned by arguments or questions in the Supreme Court.

Robert A Whit

03-27-2013, 12:34 PM

Nope, it's a Constitutional question. Besides, last I checked Prop 8 and DOMA were separate laws.

You mean like when the ACA challenges were making their way through the courts? If you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any at all. How does it feel to be a big government conservative?

The ACA flew against the wishes of the public and they jammed it into law only to see Nancy Pelosi say, gee, now we can try to figure out what just happened. Not only did a law use over 2200 pages but each page had paper cildren to the point we now have over 20,000 pages to control the public. Nancy does not comprehend freedom. She only understands raw power.

The house refused to allow republicans to play any role and in the Senate, the republican amendments were usually killed.

fj1200

03-27-2013, 01:28 PM

The ACA...

Uh it, unfortunately, was voted on by both the Senate and House and signed into law and legal challenges, unfortunately, fell short.

Robert A Whit

03-27-2013, 01:36 PM

Uh it, unfortunately, was voted on by both the Senate and House and signed into law and legal challenges, unfortunately, fell short.

Republicans were shut out of the legislative process. All one had to do to see it happening was watch CSPAN. Even doubters today can still view those bans of republicans in both houses.

The Supreme court ruled we need not opt in that should we opt out, a tax can be levied. But does that mean I must agree?

My other point is that the public was totally ignored by the Democrats. ACA as I understand this is still not popular with the public.

fj1200

03-27-2013, 01:41 PM

Republicans were shut out...

That's what happens when you're in the minority. Your point is moot.

Robert A Whit

03-27-2013, 02:55 PM

That's what happens when you're in the minority. Your point is moot.

It is not moot since the only point is republicans were shut out. With no remorse, democrats operated as if they were the only party to represent the issues the public cared about. And even here, they ignored the public. If you think that is moot, I don't know what you think things should be like.

fj1200

03-27-2013, 04:47 PM

^Anyway...

Abbey

03-27-2013, 04:57 PM

Y'know, this is one of the main areas I keep talking about? The government has this tendency to not use the simplest point of argument. Someone up there really needs to just step out and say, "Look, we aren't talking about the covenant of marriage as set by whatever religious institution, we're talking about contracts and census here. This is all paperwork, not a morality play."

Wouldn't that solve up a ton of arguments?

If it's only about contracts and census, who not be happy with civil unions with all the same benefits? But I don't hear them arguing for equal benefits under civil unions. So, there must be another reason.

I'll answer that for you- because what gays really want is to be considered normal. And unfortunately for them, biology, reproduction, and thousands of years of relationships say otherwise. Ironically for them, even if they can "marry", it will amount to only a piece of paper/contract in the end.

Abbey

03-27-2013, 04:58 PM

If we are going to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, then we should further define what "a marriage" is.
Meaning you can only get legally married once. After that, you can have a civil union, but not a legal marriage.
I think people's lives get more screwed up with multiple marriages than they ever would with gay marriages.
If you only had one chance to get it right, perhaps you would take more time to consider things.
My husband and I knew each other for seven years before we got married.

The Catholic church has been outlawing second marriages for centuries.

Abbey

03-27-2013, 05:03 PM

Liberals generally accept what the voters say too, unless they lose, in which case they seek out activist courts/judges. A shame that a handful of individuals can override what the majority of states and voters want, but that's the way we designed the system, unfortunately.

Well, only since John Marshall perverted things.

Robert A Whit

03-27-2013, 07:10 PM

The Catholic church has been outlawing second marriages for centuries.

As young as Gabby is, unless she is the great Kreskin, she can't tell her future. She may get what she wants She may get a civil union.

I recall how joyful the actress was when she got academy awards and told her then husband, Jesse James of her love and pride.

Then the roof caved in as she learned he cheated on her.

The lesson learned is one can never be certain the person they married will still be the spouse at a future time.